1 forecast. But we have abandoned the ordinary procedure of going before the Appropriation Committee, and have come before this committee. Senator PHELAN. I do not understand who advised against an increase this year. Commissioner BROWNLOW. No one. I fear you did not understand me. Senator PHELAN. I understood you to say that some committee had advised against an increase this year. Commissioner BROWNLOW. The Secretary of the Treasury has said we should not send estimates to the committees of Congress, but that this joint commission would make recommendations. Senator PHELAN. And you send your estimates to the joint committee. Commissioner BROWNLOW. No, sir; we send our estimates to the Secretary of the Treasury, who transmits them to Congress. Senator PHELAN. But how does that come before Congress? Commissioner BROWNLOW. The question is being considered by this joint commission. Senator PHELAN. Without any opportunity on your part to be heard? Commissioner BROWNLOW. No, sir; they will give us an opportunity to be heard. Every man has been sent a questionnaire concerning his duties, etc. They are considering the whole question and considering it with respect to wages paid elsewhere by the Federal Government. Senator PHELAN. Will that come up in December? Commissioner BROWNLOW. That will come up in December before the Appropriations Committee. But in the meantime we have asked the District Committee to take up this question of policemen as a separate matter, and it is now being considered by the District Committees of the House and Senate as a separate matter, entirely outside of the other. Senator PHELAN. Does this bonus now being paid lapse by expiration of time and have to be reappropriated next year? Commissioner BROWNLOW. It will have to be reappropriated this year. Senator PHELAN. And then it expires with the fiscal year? Senator PHELAN. The committee, as I understand it, is not considering at this time the question of salaries? Mr. LAMBERT. There is no question of salaries in this bill. Senator CALDER. I might say for your information, Senator Phelan, that about six weeks ago the chairman of this committee appointed a subcommittee of this committee to consider salaries. I am chairman of that subcommittee, and I was about to take up consideration of that question when this question arose. Then we determined we would not further consider it until some action was taken relative to this union proposition. Senator PHELAN. Because some of the men say they are not benefited under the plan proposed, your committee would hear them? Senator CALDER. Yes. Commissioner BROWNLOW. It provides for an increase in salary for every member of the force. Senator PHELAN. But would they lose the bonus? Commissioner BROWNLOW. That applies for this year. I was advised by Members of both the House and Senate that the bonus would apply for this year. If we should ask to eliminate the bonus and say it should not apply, and then there should be a favorable change made in the bonus for next year, a revision upward, then there would be a demand to absorb that. But it is an increase in the basic pay that we recommend, and so long as the bonus continues they get the bonus. We did make the recommendation to Congress, as far as privates are concerned, for an increase in the basic pay over the amount they now actually receive. So they would get just as much as they are getting now and the bonus in addition. We do not believe the bonus is going off, and do not believe it will go off without a general readjustment. Senator PHELAN. There is a subcommittee on that subject. Commissioner BROWNLOW. That is a thing which has been very generally talked about among members of the force. Senator PHELAN. I should say it would be reasonable to expect favorable action on that legislation. Commissioner BROWNLOW. If that legislation passes as we submitted it, it will benefit privates $20 a month. Mr. LAMBERT. In addition to what other bonus might be granted? Commissioner BROWNLOW. No; that includes the bonus. Senator CALDER. In addition to what they are getting now? Commissioner BROWNLOW. Twenty dollars more than they are getting now. I said to this committee and the House committee that the estimate of increase in salary represented what the commissioners considered a minimum, that was absolutely required to enable us to recoup and maintain the force, and that even a greater allowance would be welcomed by us, but we put in what we do believe to be the absolute minimum to enable us to fill up the force and keep the men from deserting or resigning. The CHAIRMAN. If there is no further evidence at this time the committee will take a recess until 3 p. m. (Thereupon, at 12.45 p. m., the committee took a recess until 3 o'clock p. m. AFTER RECESS. At 3 o'clock p.m. the committee reassembled pursuant to the taking of recess. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. Have you anything further, Mr. Brownlow? Commissioner BROWNLOW. Nothing else except this: I referred to an increase in the basic pay of privates on the police force three years ago. I was in error. That was two years ago. It was in our estimate two years ago and went into effect the 1st of July last year. Privates in class 1 were increased from $980 to $1,080, in class 2 from $1,080 to $1,200, in class 3 from $1,200 to $1,320. That is the only basic increase they had during the war. The other increase was in bonus. The CHAIRMAN. After $1,320 it was merely a bonus, an increase in the bonus? Commissioner BROWNLOW. Yes, sir; after $1,320 The CHAIRMAN. Do you know the status of the bill for increased compensation in the House? Commissioner BROWNLOW. It was referred to a subcommittee of which Mr. Gould of New York is chairman. I understood from Mr. Gould's secretary that he would be back in Washington soon. He was compelled to leave and would be back the 22d, which is next Monday, and probably that subcommittee will take up the bill next week. The CHAIRMAN. Do you know anything about the sentiment there! Commissioner BROWNLOW. The sentiment was expressed at the time the bill was considered by the House committee. There were two hearings, and a very full attendance at both meetings, and the committee passed a resolution in which it definitely approved an increase in pay, and then referred it to the subcommittee to draw up the measure. It is rather an unusual circumstance that before reference to the subcommittee the committee placed itself on record by unanimous vote in favor of the increase. The CHAIRMAN. That was submitted shortly after the hearing before this committee? Commissioner BROWNLOW. Two or three days after the hearing before this committee. The CHAIRMAN. So far as I know, from hearing Senators expressing themselves in committee and out, there is a favorable sentiment in the Senate. Senator DILLINGHAM. I don't know of anybody that will oppose it. Commissioner BROWNLOW. I hear that testimony with a great deal of gratification. The CHAIRMAN. Is Mr. Spencer Roberts here? STATEMENT OF MR. SPENCER ROBERTS, MEMBER OF THE METROPOLITAN POLICE FORCE OF THE COLUMBIA. The CHAIRMAN. Your name is what? Mr. ROBERTS. Spencer Roberts. The CHAIRMAN. You live at what place? DISTRICT OF Mr. ROBERTS. Between Clarendon and Ballston, on a little farm. The CHAIRMAN. In the District of Columbia? Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir, in Virginia. The CHAIRMAN. What is your occupation? Mr. ROBERTS. Policeman, private, class 3. The CHAIRMAN. How long have you been in the service? Mr. ROBERTS. Seventeen years. The CHAIRMAN. Are you a member of the Policemen's Union? The CHAIRMAN. And have been since the organization of the local? The CHAIRMAN. You are familiar with the petition or written request to affiliate with the American Federation of Labor? Mr. ROBERTS. I am. The CHAIRMAN. Was it presented to you when it was in circulation? Mr. ROBERTS. I did not see the petition, no, sir; but I have been a member of organized labor for 22 years. The CHAIRMAN. That was merely your individual affiliation before you entered the police force? Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. What was that affiliation? In what work or what occupation? Mr. ROBERTS. Carpenter. I belong to the carpenters―― The CHAIRMAN. You are the one of whom Mr. Brownlow spoke this morning? Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Those affiliations of members of the police force before they entered the service are not in question here. Mr. ROBERTS. I do not know. The CHAIRMAN. I so understood from the statement of Mr. Brownlow. Commissioner BROWNLOW. They are not in question. The CHAIRMAN. I think that is the understanding of the committee. Mr. ROBERTS. Some of the members have the impression, that belong to the local union, that it did affect them, but I do not see how it could affect them. The CHAIRMAN. They are not drawn in question in any of these proceedings here. Did you sign the petition to affiliate with the American Federation of Labor? Mr. ROBERTS. I did. The CHAIRMAN. Do you know what the constitution and by-laws of the American Federation of Labor are? Mr. ROBERTS. I have read them several times. There are several phrases and by-laws in it. Different unions have different by-laws and regulations governing them. The CHAIRMAN. This local union was organized and this petition to affiliate with the American Federation of Labor was circulated before or after the application by the Commissioners to consider the compensation of the police force and officers. Mr. ROBERTS. It was before. The CHAIRMAN. Before? Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. The affiliation had been granted and a charter issued to you that was here this morning? Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. In that affiliation with the American Federation of Labor do you understand that that imposes on you certain obligations, if you are faithful to the American Federation of Labor? Mr. ROBERTS. It imposes on the union only such obligation as they see fit to make themselves. The American Federation of Labor has nothing to do with what we shall do or what we shall not do. It imposes a moral obligation on us, is all. The CHAIRMAN. You recognize no direct obligation other than the moral one? Mr. ROBERTS. That is all. The CHAIRMAN. Any action taken by the local police union? Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Do you understand that the American Federation of Labor was to support or in some way help the local union in any action it may take within the scope of its organization? Mr. ROBERTS. The American Federation of Labor will not sanction any strike. The CHAIRMAN. I have not got to that. Do you understand that the American Federation of Labor will use its influence to help the local police organization that is affiliated with it? Mr. ROBERTS. The American Federation of Labor has helped other organizations to benefit themselves. The CHAIRMAN. I am not now referring to any strike that might be instituted. I will come to that later. What is the nature of that help? Mr. ROBERTS. Well, the American Federation of Labor is represented throughout the country by nearly 3,600,000 people, and by that affiliation with the American Federation of Labor it gives you that large body through whom you could ask liberal means and ways of advancing the cause. The CHAIRMAN. Do you think of any other advantage it would give? Mr. ROBERTS. Well, I don't know of any particular reason for it. If you will put it more direct I might answer. The CHAIRMAN. So far as you can understand or recall, that would be the only advantage in the affiliation. Mr. ROBERTS. Further advancement of the cause of the working man in general. The CHAIRMAN. And that would be because of the numerous membership of the American Federation of Labor? Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. How would that influence be exercised, do you think? Mr. ROBERTS. Through the membership. The CHAIRMAN. In what way? Mr. ROBERTS. Well, I can say that the unions in the West, particularly, are very strong, as you know, and there is not a man that has not got some influence one or another to bring to bear on the Member of Congress from his district to advance the cause of labor, if it is a good cause. The CHAIRMAN. Is that your entire answer? Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Why would you apply to Congress by your local union? Mr. ROBERTS. Apply to Congress? The CHAIRMAN. Yes. What would be the purpose of application to Congress for an increase in compensation by your local union? Mr. ROBERTS. We would not only ask for an increase in compensation, but it would be for other matters as well. The CHAIRMAN. Whatever you applied for directly by your local you would expect to be promoted by the American Federation of Labor, would you not? Mr. ROBERTS. We do not. The CHAIRMAN. You do not? Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir. They can aid us in our cause. The CHAIRMAN.. Who is to decide what help you need, what do you expect to gain? Mr. ROBERTS. We do not expect to gain anything through the American Federation of Labor. We do not look to them for that |